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 .
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-10, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayamitzu et al. (U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0331436) in view of Hayamitzu et al. (U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0358861).
As to claim 1, Hayamitzu ‘436 discloses a compressor for a refrigeration cycle system (FIG.’s 1-12, Abstract), the compressor comprising:
a compression unit 30 (FIG. 3, para. 0134) that compresses a working medium containing an ethylenic fluoroolefin (para.’s 0059-0060, “HFO-1123” is an ethylenic fluroolefin, as indicated by the composition(s) disclosed in Applicant’s spec. at para. 01081) as a refrigerant and a refrigerating machine oil (para. 0120, oil for lubrication__forming recited refrigerating machine oil under broadest reasonable interpretation of the term);
an electric unit 20 (para. 0134) that drives the compression unit 30, the electric unit 20 including a stator 21 and a rotor 22 rotatable on an axis, Id.;
a hermetic enclosure 81 (Id., casing 81 provides a hermetic enclosure) housing the working medium, the compression unit 30, and the electric unit 20 (as shown), the hermetic enclosure 81 including a power supply terminal 71 (para. 0137) electrically connectable to an external power source, Id.; and
a lead wire 72 Id., connected to the power supply terminal 71 and the stator 21 (as shown), wherein
the stator 21 includes
a core (para. 0136, “iron core, and a winding wire”), and
a coil Id., connected to the lead wire 72 and wound on the core (as shown and described).
Hayamitzu ‘436 is silent as to the lead wire has a higher dielectric strength than the coil. However, Hayamitzu ‘861 teaches a refrigerant compressor having a lead wire 57 provided with dielectric strengthening elements such as a cover, terminal and insulation (para. 0057). These elements of the lead wire and not present on the wires of the coil of the stator so that it follows that the wire’s dielectric strength is increased with respect to the coil wires by extension. With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to make the lead wire with a higher dielectric strength than the stator coil in order to prevent sparking due to abnormal heat generation as taught by Hayamitzu ‘861, Id.
As to claim 2, the applied art is silent as to the stator being wound by concentrated or distributed winding. To this point, the Examiner takes Official Notice that it would have been obvious to form the stator winding using either of these techniques in order to provide desired winding performance as a matter of common electrical motor design principles accordingly. Note these are product-by-process limitation(s).2
As to claim 3, Hayamitzu ‘436 further discloses the rotor 22 includes a protrusion on at least one of two ends of the rotor that are opposite to each other in a direction along the axis (refer to an Annotated copy of Hayamitzu ‘436 attached below, as shown and indicated).
PNG
media_image1.png
735
595
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Hayamitzu ‘436 FIG. 3
As to claim 4, Hayamitzu ‘436 further discloses at least the stator 21 or the rotor 22 includes a path for the working medium, the path (FIG. 3, para. 0138, between compression unit 20 and discharge pipe 84) extending between two ends of the stator 21 or the rotor 22 that are opposite to each other in a direction along the axis.
As to claim 6, Hayamitzu ‘436 further discloses the ethylenic fluoroolefin contained in the working medium can undergo disproportionation (para. 0004, “a certain level of ignition energy is applied to HFO-1123 in a high-temperature and high-pressure state, a chain of chemical reactions … called disproportionation reaction (self-decomposition reaction)”).
As to claim 7, Hayamitzu ‘436 further discloses the ethylenic fluoroolefin is at least one selected from the group consisting of 1,1,2-trifluoroethylene (para. 0059, “working fluid used in the present invention contains 1,1,2-trifluoroethylene (HFO-1123)”), trans-1,2-difluoroethylene, cis-1,2-difluoroethylene, 1,1-difluoroethylene, tetrafluoroethylene, and monofluoroethylene.
As to claim 8, Hayamitzu ‘436 is silent as to the working medium further contains difluoromethane as a refrigerant specifically but does disclose general use of HFC-32 class refrigerants with similar molecular structure (para.’s 0068-0071). To this point, Hayamitzu ‘861 teaches using difluoromethane as the HFC-32 refrigerant (para. 0003). With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use difluoromethane in the working medium, an HFC-32 compound known in the art for its suitability for intended use in refrigerant applications as suggested by Hayamitzu ‘861, Id. MPEP 2144.07.
As to claim 9, Hayamitzu ‘436 further discloses the working medium further contains a saturated hydrocarbon with two to five carbon atoms (para. 0118, “[e]xamples of the hydrocarbon include propane, propylene, cyclopropane, butane, isobutane, pentane, isopentane and the like,” these examples meet the recited saturated hydrocarbon compositions disclosed in Applicant’s spec. at para. 0038).
As to claim 10, Hayamitzu ’436 further discloses the saturated hydrocarbon comprises n-propane (Id., propane __a form of the recited generic n-propane).
As to claim 12, Hayamitzu ‘436 further discloses the working medium contains 1,1,2-trifluoroethylene (para. 0059) and n-propane (para. 0118) but is silent as to a proportion of the n-propane to a total amount of the 1,1,2-trifluoroethylene and the n-propane is 20% by mass or more. Hayamitzu ‘436 does disclose a specific working medium composition of HFO-1123 mixed with an HFC-32 refrigerant where the content of HFC-32 is preferably 5 mass % or more (para. 0093). Importantly, the recited n-propane part of the working medium is a specific form of HFC-32 refrigerant. Hayamitzu further teaches that the masses of the different refrigerant types in the mixture is a result effective parameter that determines the temperature gradient, i. e., evaporation temperatures, affecting the overall cooling performance of the system (para.’s 0065-0067). With this in mind, one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize content of the refrigerant working medium mix as a routine optimization. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant application to modify amount of the 1,1,2-trifluoroethylene and the n-propane to be 20% by mass or more in order to optimize temperature gradient and cooling performance of the refrigerant working medium as indicated by Haymitzu ‘436 Id. since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.05(II).
As to claim 13, Hayamitzu ‘436 further discloses the working medium contains 1,1,2-trifluoroethylene (para. 0059) and n-propane (para. 0118) but is silent as to a proportion of the 1,1,2-trifluoroethylene is 80% and a proportion of the n-propane is 20% by mass based on 100% by mass of a total amount of the 1,1,2-trifluoroethylene and then-propane. Hayamitzu ‘436 does disclose a specific working medium composition of HFO-1123 mixed with HFC-32 refrigerants where the content of the content of HFC-32 is preferably 5 mass % or more. The recited n-propane part of the working medium is a form of an HFC-32 class refrigerant composition. Hayamitzu further teaches that the masses of the different refrigerant types in the mixture is a result effective parameter that determines the temperature gradient, i. e., evaporation temperatures, affecting the overall cooling performance of the system (para.’s 0065-0067). With this in mind, one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize the content of the refrigerant working medium composition mix as a routine optimization. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant application to modify the proportion of the 1,1,2-trifluoroethylene to be 80% and a proportion of the n-propane to be 20% by mass based on 100% by mass of a total amount of the 1,1,2-trifluoroethylene and the n-propane in order to optimize the temperature gradient and cooling performance of the refrigerant working medium as indicated by Haymitzu ‘436 Id. since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.05(II).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayamitzu et al. (U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0331436) in view of Hayamitzu et al. (U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0358861) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Nakano et al. (International Patent Publication WO 2019/031370).
As to claim 11, the applied art is discussed above but is silent as to the working medium further contains a haloalkane with one or two carbon atoms as a disproportionation inhibitor for inhibiting disproportionation of the ethylenic fluoroolefin, and the haloalkane is other than a fluoroalkane containing only fluorine as a halogen substituent. To this point, Nakano teaches refrigerant compositions comprising a haloalkane without a flouroalkane group (Mach. Trans. ‘MT’ Abstract). With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use such a non-flouroalkane haloalkane in the working medium in order to suppress a disproportionation reaction in working mediums containing 1,1,2-trifluoroethylene (HFO-1123) thereby decreasing the possibility of a large heat release as suggested by Nakano (MT p. 1, inter alia).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With respect to claim 5, the prior art of record either alone or in combination does not teach or fairly suggest the compressor of claim 1 further comprising a feeder that holds a disproportionation inhibitor for inhibiting disproportionation of the ethylenic fluoroolefin and that releases the disproportionation inhibitor at a temperature equal to or higher than a specific temperature, wherein the coil includes a coil end projecting from an end of the core in a direction along the axis, and the feeder is located closer to the coil end than to the core.
Adding a feeder in proximity to the coil wiring that it is configured to release disproportionation inhibitor due to high temperature conditions is not contemplated nor would have been reasonably foreseeable without the benefit provided by the disclosure of the instant invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Peng et al. (U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0040368) discloses flouroolefin type refrigerant compositions representing the general state of the art (FIG.’s 1-5, Abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH J HANSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6780. The examiner can normally be reached Monday Friday 7:00 AM to 4:00 PM (MT).
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, Mark Laurenzi can be reached at (571) 270-7878. 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.
/KENNETH J HANSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
1 “The flouroolefin is not limited to a particular type, and examples of the fluoroolefin include: fluoroethylenes such as 1,1,2-trifluoroethylene (HFO-1123) …”
2 [E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). MPEP 2113.
Prosecution Insights