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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 8/20/2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
References 4 and 5 of the IDS are not found.
In addition the following references have been provided but are not included on an IDS:
PNG
media_image1.png
194
813
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Moreover the above reference appears incomplete as only a single figure is provided
PNG
media_image2.png
324
663
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim Objections
Claims 3-11 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 3-11 include a semi-colon after “hydrofluoroolefins”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, and 12-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kontomaris (US 9,745,496) in view of Rached (US 10,669,465).
Regarding claim 1, Kontomaris discloses method comprising:
compressing a working fluid to form a compressed working fluid, wherein the working fluid comprises: at least one C5 or C6 cis or (Z) hydrofluoroolefins (“Z-HFO-1336mzz”);
condensing the working fluid to form a condensed working fluid,
expanding the working fluid to form an expanded working fluid; and
heating the working fluid, wherein heat from a heat source is transferred to a heat sink with the working fluid (figures 1-3 show various refrigeration cycles which compress, condense, expand, and heat the working fluid).
Kontomaris lacks at least one C5 or C6 cis olefins.
Rached discloses utilizing C3 to C6 alkene stabilizing compounds (2:35-48) such as 2-methylbut-2-ene (column 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Kontomaris with the stabilizing compound of Rached in order to stabilize the working fluid.
Regarding claim 2, Kontomaris discloses the at least one C5 or C6 cis or (Z) hydrofluoroolefins is selected from the group consisting of: 2,3-dimethyl-but-2-ene, (Z)-1,1,1,4,4,4-hexafluoro-2-methylbut-2-ene, 2-(difluoromethyl)-1,1,4,4-tetrafluorobut-2-ene, 1,1,1,4,4,4-hexafluoro-2-(trifluoromethyl)-2-butene, (Z)-1,1,1,4,4,4-hexafluoro-2-butene (6:31-33), (E)-1,1,1,2,4,4,4-heptafluoro-3-methylbut-2-ene, (Z)-1,1,1,2,4,4,4-heptafluoro-3-methylbut-2-ene, (E)-1,1,1,3,5,5,5-heptafluoro-2-pentene, (Z)-1,1,1,3,5,5,5-heptafluoro-2-pentene, (E)-1,1,1,4,4,4-hexafluoro-2-methylbut-2-ene, and any combinations thereof.
Regarding claim 12, Kontomaris discloses the working fluid after the compressing is in a supercritical phase (14:6-10).
Regarding claim 13, Kontomaris discloses a compressed working fluid is in a subcritical phase (1:42-44).
Regarding claim 14, Kontomaris discloses flowing the working fluid through at least one device selected from the group consisting of: an evaporator (6); a flash cooler, a flash economizer, a heat exchanger, and any combination thereof.
Regarding 15, Kontomaris discloses flowing the working fluid and an additional working fluid through a heat exchanger (5 and 6 of figure 1), wherein heat is transferred between the working fluid and the additional working fluid.
Regarding claim 16, Kontomaris discloses the working fluid has a critical temperature of 170°C (19:62). Kontomaris lacks “greater than”. However as discussed above in column 19 it is desirable to increase condenser temperature. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have increased the critical temperature and the condenser temperature in order to provide high quality heat.
Regarding claim 17, Kontomaris discloses the working fluid has a critical pressure less than 35 bar (15:14-33).
Regarding claims 18 and 20, Kontomaris discloses a method comprising: compressing a working fluid, wherein the working fluid comprises at least one C5 or C6 cis or (Z) hydrofluoroolefins (“Z-HFO-1336mzz”);
exchanging heat between the working fluid and a heat source to increase a temperature of the heat source from below 100 °C to between 100 °C and 200 °C (example 4 at column 23);; and condensing the working fluid.
Kontomaris lacks at least one C5 or C6 cis olefins.
Rached discloses utilizing C3 to C6 alkene stabilizing compounds (2:35-48) such as 2-methylbut-2-ene (column 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Kontomaris with the stabilizing compound of Rached in order to stabilize the working fluid.
Kontomaris lacks expanding the working fluid through a turbine to generate electricity. The examiner takes official notice that utilizing turbines to expand refrigerant and drive generators is old and well known. Further it is known to utilize the captured power to power equipment It would have been obvious to one of oridinary skill in the art to have provided Kontomaris with a turbine and generator in order to capture the energy of expansion and power equipment.
Regarding claim 19, Kontomaris, as modified, discloses the method of claim 18, but is silent concerning a heat source. The examiner takes official notice that all of geothermal, solar, biomass, industrial waste heat, and any combination thereof are old and well known. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Kontomaris with geothermal, solar, biomass, or industrial waste heat in order to utilize a heat source having low environmental impact.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims (as well as the typographical error noted above).
Claims 3-11 provide for specific ratios of refrigerants not suggested by the prior art to achieve the benefits as set forth in at least [0024] of the instant application.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Okamoto et al (US 11,339,106) C5 or higher preferable, col 19.
Smith et al (US 10,717,694) c3 to c6 hydrofluoroolefins.
Rached et al (US 9,908,828) stabilizers.
Rao et al (US 8,075,796) Phenol stabilizers for fluoroolefins.
Ishida et al (US 5,746,933) refrigerant composition.
Takigawa et al (US 5,711,895) refrigerant compositions.
Seaman (GB148877) refrigerant composition.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER R ZERPHEY whose telephone number is (571)272-5965. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-4:00 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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached at 5712707740. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER R ZERPHEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799