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 10/17/2024, 8/20/2025 and 11/17/2025 were filed on or after the mailing date of the application. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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.
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 speaks to the speculative application of the invention [see first sentence of the abstract] and additionally the abstract contains “[Document Name]” which is not a part of the abstract. 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 § 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.
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, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirohata (JP2001241797A) in view of Kumakura et al. (US2020/0332166).
Regarding Claim 1, Hirohata teaches a freezing apparatus [fig 2] comprising
a compressor [1], a condenser [3], an expansion mechanism [4, 6], and an evaporator [7; 0026; 0027], the compressor includes a suction part that sucks in the working medium, a compression mechanism that compresses the working medium sucked through the suction part, and a refrigerant supply part that supplies the working medium to the compression mechanism via a path different from the suction part [0026; 0027], and
the compressor is an internal low-pressure compressor in which the compression mechanism, together with an electric motor [implicit], is accommodated in a container, so that the compression mechanism sucks and compresses the working medium present in the container [0026; 0027].
Hirohata does not teach wherein a working medium containing an ethylene-based fluoroolefin is used as a refrigerant.
However, Kumakura teaches a refrigeration cycle apparatus [0001] having wherein a working medium containing an ethylene-based fluoroolefin is used as a refrigerant [0044; 0045] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element 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. provide a system that can advantageously use a refrigerant using a small GWP [0004].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Hirohata to have wherein a working medium containing an ethylene-based fluoroolefin is used as a refrigerant in view of the teachings of Kumakura where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. provide a system that can advantageously use a refrigerant using a small GWP.
Regarding Claim 2, Hirohata, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 above and Hirohata teaches a refrigerant storage part [5] provided between the condenser [3] and the evaporator [7; 0026; 0027]; and a refrigerant pipe [8] that delivers the working medium as a gas from the refrigerant storage part to the refrigerant supply part, wherein the expansion mechanism structures a two-stage expansion process including an expansion valve [4] that is positioned at an exit of the condenser and operates as a first-stage decompression mechanism, and the refrigerant storage part [0026; 0027; 0029; fig 2].
Regarding Claim 4, Hirohata, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 above and Kumakura teaches an electric motor cooling circuit [46, 49] that causes the working medium as a liquid to flow into a suction pipe or the container of the compressor [1463; fig 5E]; an electric motor cooling valve [49] that opens and closes the electric motor cooling circuit [1463]; and a control device [fig 5B] that controls the electric motor cooling valve [48, 49], wherein when a temperature of the compressor satisfies a condition set in advance, the control device exercises control so as to open the electric motor cooling valve [1461-1463; 1488;1489].
Regarding Claim 6, Hirohata, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 above and Hirohata teaches wherein the expansion mechanism includes an expansion valve [6] positioned at an exit of the condenser, the freezing apparatus comprises a control device [12] that controls the expansion valve, and upon detecting that pressure of the working medium in a high pressure part including the compressor and the condenser has increased to a threshold value or higher, the control device causes the expansion valve to operate in a closing direction to a first opening degree, and subsequently, when the pressure increase of the working medium in the high pressure part has stopped, causes the expansion valve to operate in the closing direction to a second opening degree [0026-0029; figs 1 & 2].
Regarding Claim 7, Hirohata, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 6 above and Hirohata teaches a heat source-side heat exchanger [3; fig 1]; a use-side heat exchanger [7; fig 1]; and a switching valve [2a] that switches between a heating operation state in which the use-side heat exchanger is caused to operate as the condenser and a cooling operation state in which the heat source-side heat exchanger is caused to operate as the condenser [0019-0024], wherein upon detecting, in the heating operation state, that pressure of the working medium in the high pressure part including the compressor and the condenser has increased to a threshold value or higher, the control device controls the switching valve so as to switch operation from the heating operation state to the cooling operation state [0025-0029].
Regarding Claim 8, Hirohata, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 7 above and Hirohata teaches wherein the switching valve is configured by using a four-way valve or an electromagnetic open/close valve that operates on low differential pressure [0021].
Regarding Claim 3, Hirohata teaches a freezing apparatus [fig 7] comprising a compressor [1], a condenser [3], an expansion mechanism [4, 6], and an evaporator [7; 0026; 0027], the compressor is a two-stage compressor including a suction part that sucks in the working medium, a first compression mechanism that compresses the working medium sucked through the suction part, and a second compression mechanism that compresses the working medium compressed by the first compression mechanism [0026-0027], and
the compressor has a refrigerant supply part that supplies the working medium to a position between the first compression mechanism and the second compression mechanism [0026-0027].
Hirohata does not teach wherein a working medium containing an ethylene-based fluoroolefin is used as a refrigerant.
However, Kumakura teaches a refrigeration cycle apparatus [0001] having wherein a working medium containing an ethylene-based fluoroolefin is used as a refrigerant [0044; 0045] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element 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. provide a system that can advantageously use a refrigerant using a small GWP [0004].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Hirohata to have wherein a working medium containing an ethylene-based fluoroolefin is used as a refrigerant in view of the teachings of Kumakura where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. provide a system that can advantageously use a refrigerant using a small GWP.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirohata (JP2001241797A) and Kumakura et al. (US2020/0332166) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hibino et al. (JPH07243728A).
Regarding Claim 5, Hirohata, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 above but does not teach wherein a discharge pipe through which the compressor discharges compressed refrigerant is provided with pressure releasing means that releases pressure when pressure of the discharge pipe is equal to or higher than a set pressure value.
However, Hibino teaches a heat pump type air conditioner [0001] having wherein a discharge pipe through which the compressor discharges compressed refrigerant is provided with pressure releasing means [10] that releases pressure when pressure of the discharge pipe is equal to or higher than a set pressure value [0013; 0014] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element 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. provide a mechanism that adjusts the refrigerant capacity of the system [0008].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Hirohata to have wherein a discharge pipe through which the compressor discharges compressed refrigerant is provided with pressure releasing means that releases pressure when pressure of the discharge pipe is equal to or higher than a set pressure value in view of the teachings of Hibino where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. provide a mechanism that adjusts the refrigerant capacity of the system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LARRY L FURDGE whose telephone number is (313)446-4895. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 6a-3p; F 6a-10a.
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 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.
/LARRY L FURDGE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights